SETTING THE BASELINE
Foundational literacy in Kwanobuhle
Dr G.D. Harrison, Professor E.J. Pretorius, Mr B. Malila & Ms J. Hodgskiss
Centre for Social Development
Rhodes University, 5 Prince Alfred Street, Grahamstown
October 2016
1
Contents
Abbreviations used ... 2
Acknowledgements ... 2
Introduction and background ... 3
Foundational literacy ... 3
What do children need to learn in order to read? ... 4
Methodology ... 5
Research goal ... 5
Aims ... 5
Research questions ... 5
Research methods ... 5
Participants ... 6
Ethical measures ... 7
Assessment instruments ... 7
Data analysis ... 8
Results: quantitative component: literacy assessments ... 8
Four basic measures of literacy assessment ... 8
Analysis of ORF across all seven schools ... 10
Gender and age differences across the schools ... 12
Non-readers across the schools ... 13
Results: qualitative findings: classroom observations ... 14
The reading corner ... 14
Word walls ... 18
Alphabet charts ... 22
Cross-cutting analysis ... 24
Discussion ... 25
Getting reading right from the start ... 26
The relationship between the classroom environment and literacy performance ... 27
Classroom environments ... 29
Teacher assessment of learners’ literacy levels ... 29
Planning for literacy ... 30
Gender differences ... 31
Recommendations and conclusions ... 31
Suggested plan of action ... 33
References ... 35
2
Appendix 1: School summaries ... 38
School 3 (Green) ... 38
School 5 (Purple, control) ... 41
School 4 (Red Control) ... 45
School 1 (Orange) ... 48
School 2 (Blue) ... 51
School 6 (Pink) ... 55
School 7 (Yellow) ... 59
Appendix 2: EGRA Tests ... 2
Abbreviations used
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance (a statistical test)
CAPS: Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (current curriculum for SA schools) CSD: Centre for Social Development, Rhodes University
CSI: Corporate Social Investment DBE: Department of Basic Education
EGRA: Early Grade Reading Assessment (a test) EQ: Emotional Intelligence
FAL: First Additional Language (usually English, in this context) HL: Home Language (usually isiXhosa, in this context)
HoD: Head of Department
ORF: Oral Reading Fluency (a measure of reading ability) SE: socio-economic
VW: Volkswagen
VWCT: VW Community Trust
WCPM or wcpm: words correct per minute (units in which ORF is measured)
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible by funding from Volkswagen Community Trust who have worked extensively in the Kwanobuhle area to uplift education, particularly in the field of foundational literacy. We would like to acknowledge the schools that participated in this research, the principals, HoDs, educators and learners. We would also like to thank the parents for recognising the importance of this research and allowing their children to participate. Lastly, we would like to thank the research team at the Centre for Social Development who developed new research skills and thereby made a meaningful contribution to understanding the literacy needs of our under- privileged communities.
3
Introduction and background
VW has a long history of Corporate Social Investment (CSI) in the Port Elizabeth area, specifically in education, through the VW Community Trust. Initially responses to the crisis faced by South African education since 1994, especially at institutions that VW workers’ children attend, were at tertiary level in the form of university bursaries, and at high school level in the form of bursaries for Senior Certificate and Grade 8. This financial support yielded results on an individual basis, but not at a broader community level, which was anticipated by the VW Community Trust. The return on this investment in education has yet to be seen in people getting improved jobs so that they can sustain a better-quality life for themselves.
The emphasis has now shifted toward assessing and improving literacy in Foundation Phase, namely, Grade 3. The reason is that research reveals that the majority of learners in Foundation Phase cannot read by the time they complete Grade 3 (Fleisch, 2008). An investment in improving literacy acquisition at an early stage of a child’s life provides an increased opportunity of academic success at school and in later life. The intervention itself has yet to be determined and will be squarely based on the findings of baseline data gathered on the state of foundational literacy in Grade 3, as well as an observation of classroom environments.
Foundational literacy
The ability to read is a fundamental skill that helps a child succeed in personal life, at school, in the workplace and in society at large (Mukherji & O’Dea, 2000). In fact, ability to read is the most important educational outcome of primary education.
Furthermore, reading is a complex process that does not take place naturally like spoken language acquisition does. For adults, reading is something we take for granted; this is not the case for children, however.
A Vygotskian theoretical framework was chosen to underpin this research because Lev Vygotsky is widely recognized as a theorist who was concerned with learning as a social and liberating force (Cole, 1996; Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Hedegaard, 2001;
Stetsenko, 2012). In the context of South Africa’s relatively new democracy, it has been recognized that education is a force for change (Fleish, 2011). Vygotsky provides the researcher with an understanding of pedagogical practice that is particularly relevant to this research and the context of teaching and learning.
The Vygotskian approach to literacy instruction can be seen as a largely collaborative effort (Jennings & Di, 1996) whereby students take responsibility for their own learning and the teacher acts as a guide to facilitate the construction of knowledge. For this reason it is essential that the teacher create a classroom learning environment that allows for both independent and collaborative learning.
Michael Cole (2005) coined the term “tool” or “artefact” to describe how learning takes place within a socio-cultural context, as suggested by Vygotsky. Perhaps one of the most important cultural tools is that of our reading and writing systems which facilitate
4
new learning. According to Vygotsky (1978), cultural tools transform human mental abilities, enabling increased memory capacity, problem solving, emotional competency, increased attention span and organised thinking. A classic example of children using external tools to expand their higher mental functions, is that of a Foundation Phase learner sitting in a book corner and using a book to retell a story to a puppet sitting on the shelf (Harrison, 2014). By internalising the symbols and sounds of the alphabet, words from a word wall, and sentences in the story book, learners practice their reading skills, but the success of the internalization is dependent on a socially mediated context, such as a classroom.
Vygotsky (1978) described a number of stages in the child’s development through the use of culturally mediated tools. The first step involves repeated exposure to that tool which, in our example, would be the print-rich environment of the classroom, encompassing a book corner, word wall, alphabet chart and thematic posters. The second stage is the opportunity to be scaffolded in learning through the support of the teacher or peers, and mediation of cultural tools such as a word wall. In the third stage, the learners may work independently to practise their new learning which, in this case, would be reading. In the book corner, the learner may choose a book which he can practise reading and retell the story to a puppet placed on the book shelf. Through the retelling process, the learner uses his own language and draws from existing knowledge to consolidate new learning. In this way, through the use of a print-rich environment, the learner is guided by the teacher and the tools/artefacts which provide opportunity to practise new skills and internalise new learning.
What do children need to learn in order to read?
According to Pretorius (2016), foundational literacy means that, “By the end of Grade 3, children must be able to read accurately, at a steady pace and with meaning and enjoyment.” To do this, children need to be able to decode words.
Reading needs to be taught explicitly over a number of years for learners to become
“fast, accurate and comprehending readers” (Pretorius & Mokhwesana, 2009). The two main components of reading were decoding and comprehension. Decoding refers to the ability to break words down into smaller units, e.g. syllables or letters, and understanding the relationship between the written letters and the spoken sounds of language, while comprehension means understanding the text as a whole. The ability to recognise letters of the alphabet and how they relate to the sounds of the language is called understanding the “alphabetic code.” There is no way of bypassing the decoding step in the reading process. Children who were unable to “crack the code”, will not be able to read fluently and with comprehension.
According to Konza (2011), children become fluent readers by practising their reading skills at their independent reading levels. The more they read, the more their reading skills “become automatized and the number of words they can read instantly on sight increases substantially”. However, children who read very slowly, place so much energy and attention on decoding that they do not have the cognitive capacity to understand
5
what the text actually means. If the message is not transmitted to the brain within a certain timeframe, meaning is lost.
Thus, the developing brain needs time and practice to build up representations in each component and connect them automatically (Pretorius, 2016). Fluency and comprehension work symbiotically. It is only possible to read fluently if comprehension is happening concurrently. Similarly, if reading is not fluent, comprehension is compromised. By the end of Grade 3, decoding must be accurate and automatic. This is a necessary condition for comprehension.
Methodology
Research goal
One of the main aims of the Grade-3 baseline literacy assessments was to determine whether, by the third term of Grade 3, learners had foundational literacy skills in place that would stand them in good stead for when they made the transition to the Intermediate Phase in Grade 4. Grade 4 is an important transition period, where textbooks in the learning subjects become increasingly important, and success at school is closely associated with the ability to ‘read to learn’.
Aims:
The main aims of this research are to:
1. provide a clear baseline of the reading level of learners at the end of Foundation Phase (i.e., in Grade 3) in seven schools in the Kwanobuhle area of Port Elizabeth, and
2. assess the literacy features of the Grade-3 classrooms which the learners occupy.
Research questions:
The questions which guided the research were:
Are children in Grade 3 able to read accurately, at a steady pace and with meaning in their Home Language (isiXhosa)?
Do their classrooms provide an enabling environment for literacy development?
To what extent can learners recognize letter-sound relationships in isiXhosa?
To what extent can children recognize words and read fluently in isiXhosa?
To what extent can children understand what they have read in isiXhosa?
In what ways does a print-rich environment influence a child’s ability to read in isiXhosa?
Research methods
A mixed methods approach was adopted to conduct this research because mixed methods allow the researcher to:
analyse a variety of data which strengthens the validity of conclusions;
answer questions from a number of different perspectives;
ensure that there are no gaps in data collection;
6
analyse data such that, if one method does not provide answers, another method may assist (Creswell, 2003);
analyse any pre-existing assumptions with a view to potentially refuting them.
On 18 July 2016, six researchers, drawn from CSD staff, were trained by Prof L.
Pretorius in Grahamstown in how to conduct the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) Test with Grade-3 learners and fill in the Classroom Observation Tool. On 19 July 2016, a Stakeholder’s Meeting was held in Kwanobuhle to inform the principals and the Grade-3 teachers about the purpose of the research, timeline for the research, the pre-intervention audit process, and to set dates for conducting the EGRA test and Classroom Observation in the schools.
The sample consisted of seven schools: five intervention schools and two control schools. The five intervention schools were targeted as future recipients of a VWCT sponsored intervention. The control schools had previously been recipients of VW- sponsored interventions. The latter specifically stated that they were happy to be part of the data collection process, but did not want to be part of any further intervention. A stratified sample of 12 Grade-3 learners was used for conducting the EGRA test: four learners with above average literacy skills, four learners with average skills and four learners with below average skills. The test took approximately 15 minutes, per learner, to administer. The CSD researchers worked in pairs because not all were fluent in isiXhosa. While the isiXhosa speaker administered the test, the other conducted the Classroom Observation tool and took photographs.
Participants
The assessment of literacy skills in the early years requires individual, one-on-one testing. This is time consuming, as only a limited number of learners can be tested in the course of a morning. Each school was asked to provide a stratified sample consisting of learners whom they regarded as the top four learners, middle four and bottom four, based on previous class assessments undertaken by their Grade-3 teachers. A total of 84 Grade-3 learners from the seven schools were assessed, that is, 12 from each school.
The gender composition was 33 boys and 51 girls, and the average age of the learners was 8.68 years (Table 1).
7
Table 1: Age and gender of the Grade-3 learners across schools.
Categories Intervention schools Control schools Totals
Boys (n) 24 9 33
Girls (n) 36 15 51
8-9 years (n) 55 23 78
10-12+ years (n) 5 1 6
Mean age of Grade-3
learners (years) 8.68 8.54 8.64
Ethical measures
Before the researchers went to the schools, permission was received from the principals of the schools and the parents of all the learners were required to sign consent forms. A stakeholders meeting was held before the research commenced to provide a platform for discussion. Regarding photographs, the researchers were asked to take photographs at break time when the children were out of the classroom, or to only photograph the backs of learners. No teachers or staff were included in any photographic evidence. Pre- arranged times were determined with each participating school in order to accommodate the schools’ programmes.
Assessment instruments
The Grade-3 baseline study involved assessment of four foundational literacy skills, viz.
(1) knowledge of letter sounds, (2) the ability to read a list of familiar words, (3) the ability to read words in a connected passage with accuracy and fluency (referred to as Oral Reading Fluency, henceforth ORF), and (4) ability to answer some oral comprehension questions, to determine whether the learners understood what they had read.
The literacy assessment was based on the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) instrument. The EGRA test was used because it is reliable and well-known and has been translated into isiXhosa. It has been applied in more than 40 countries and in most languages. The original instrument was adapted to accommodate the Grade-3 learners in this research. For example, the original ORF passage was more appropriate for Grade-1 learners, so it was replaced with a passage taken from an isiXhosa reader widely used in South African Grade-2 and -3 classes.
Assessment of the first three skills involve timed tests, in which learners were given a minute in which to perform each task. The reason for this was to determine to what extent the early foundational skills had become automatized. When children first learn to read, they do so slowly and haltingly, and attentional capacity ‘uses up’ working memory. The more familiar they become with the written code, and the more practised they get, the more accurate and faster their reading becomes. This enables their working
8
memory to be ‘freed up’ during reading so that they can pay attention to comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels 1974; Stanovich 1986, 2000). If readers spend too much time trying to figure out how to decode words, their working memory is too preoccupied with decoding and so comprehension is compromised.
A Classroom Observation Tool was designed for the purpose of the baseline study, using a Likert Scale of 1-5 to assess seven aspects of the classroom, with a view to gauging the level of print-richness.
Data analysis
In this research, data was analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Data were collected and analysed from the EGRA tests, Classroom Observation Tool and photographs.
Each school was assigned a colour and number and each learner a number. The control schools were Schools 4 (Red) and 5 (Purple) which had previously had interventions.
The other schools were those that had been identified as subjects for intervention in 2017, and will henceforth be referred to as the intervention schools.
The quantitative results of the study are presented first, followed by the qualitative findings (below). Thereafter a general discussion of the findings of the study is given, followed by recommendations.
Results: quantitative component: literacy assessments
In the sections below, the results of the basic literacy assessments are given in terms of overall mean differences between the intervention and control schools, and according to gender and age differences across the schools. Also given are the percentages of non- readers in each school and across the sample.
Four basic measures of literacy assessment
The performance scores of the Grade-3 learners in the four components of literacy that were assessed are presented in terms of means and standard deviations (Table 2). The means reflect raw scores. A composite score, derived from the four components of the test, is given in the final column, to show the mean performance of the schools relative to each other. This composite score is a convenient index to rank the schools’
performance.
9
Table 2: Mean performance on literacy measures across schools.
Schools
Letter-sound knowledge
(110)
Word reading (50)
Oral Reading Fluency (wcpm)
Oral reading comprehension
(5)
Composite score Mean, all
schools (SD)
59.40 (7.70)
31.98 (5.29)
24.10 (5.25)
1.90 (0.39) School 1
(Orange) 64.33 31.33 25.33 1.67 122
School 2
(Blue) 62.83 30.67 24.92 2.25 119
School 3
(Green) 59.92 38.75 28.92 2.42 129
School 4
(Red) 71.92 39.17 27.42 2.25 140
School 5
(Purple) 51.83 31.58 24 1.75 109
School 6
(Pink) 54.75 26.58 19.92 1.58 101
School 7
(Yellow) 50.25 26.75 14 1.42 92
There was considerable variance in performance across the schools (Table 2). In terms of ability to identify letter-sounds fluently, only learners in School 4 (Red) performed well in this. Learners in Schools 5 (Purple), 6 (Pink) and 7 (Yellow) were slower and less accurate in this domain. Given that these were Grade-3 learners, mastery in this domain should have been achieved by this stage of Foundation Phase, but this was not evident in the results. Although letter-sound knowledge per se does not guarantee fluent reading, not knowing letter-sound relationships makes decoding extremely challenging.
The ability to read words fast and accurately, both out of context (e.g., words standing on their own) or in context (e.g., in a passage) as reflected in the ORF score, was generally quite low for Grade-3 learners, with means not exceeding 28 wcpm. The composite scores showed that School 4 (Red) outperformed the others, followed by School 3 (Green). Schools 5 (Purple), 6 (Pink) and 7 (Yellow) were the weakest. The difference between the highest composite score of 140 (School 4, Red) and the lowest composite score of 92 (School 7, Yellow) was 48, or 52% relative to the low score. This can be regarded as a relatively large difference between schools of comparable socio- economic status, which raises interesting and relevant questions with regard to the learning environments at the schools.
One might have expected that the best performing schools would have been Schools 4 (Red) and 5 (Purple) because these were the control schools that had previously had literacy interventions. While School 4 (Red) was indeed the best performing school overall, School 5 (Purple) was ranked fifth out of seven, which can be viewed as a disappointing outcome.
We now look at the performance of the schools more closely in terms of ORF scores, as these are a relatively sensitive quantifiable index of foundational literacy.
10
Analysis of ORF across all seven schools
The average number of words read correctly per minute (wcpm/WCPM) across all schools was 23.7 wcpm, which is extremely slow reading (Figure 1). Note that this is the reading speed one expects of Grade-1 learners. The weakest schools in terms of ORF scores were Schools 6 (Pink) and 7 (Yellow) which were significantly below the overall mean, especially School 7 (Yellow) at 14.5 wcpm (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Mean ORF scores per school. “School 8” is the overall mean of the seven schools.
The box-and-whisker plots below show the range of ORF performance more clearly.
The black line in the box represents the median score, while the lower and upper limits of the box represent the performance of learners at the 25th and 75th percentile respectively (i.e., the weaker and stronger learners in the group). The ‘whiskers’ show minimum and maximum performance and identify the outliers. Seeing the variation in ORF in these plots facilitates commentary on learner performance in relation to potential support and pedagogy. There were two learners in the cohort who managed to read the ORF passage of 56 words in one minute, and six learners who managed to read more than 41 wcpm (41-47 wcpm), which indicated that such reading rates are possible in isiXhosa in Grade 3. In four of the schools, learners read slowly, below 30 wcpm.
The medians were comparable across all seven schools. The long whiskers for most schools suggested that there were many outliers in the data (many very small or very large data points). In School 2 (Blue), student results did not vary much. The data in School 7 (Yellow) was skewed, having a median closer to the weakest readers in the other schools. The median (midpoint) was larger than the mean (average), which implies that there were more small values than large values in our sample. All in all, the box and whisker plots had similar shapes, which may imply that there is no particular school effect with regards to the ORF results.
25.3 24.9
28.9
27.4
24.6
19.9
14.5
23.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
WCPM
Schools
11 Figure 2: Comparison of ORF across schools.
As a final step in the analysis of the ORF data, an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was used to test for significant differences in ORF between schools (Cornish, 2006). The data were divided into seven strata, represented by the seven schools, with learner results in seven non-overlapping groups. The samples drawn from each stratum were of equal size (n=12), giving a total of 84 observations in the data set (Table 3).
Table 3: ANOVA results for differences in ORF between the schools.1
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept)
30.3920 11.7637 2.584 0.01197*
School 1 (Orange)
-0.5694 3.1287 -0.182 0.85614
School 3 (Green)
2.6361 4.7996 0.549 0.58466
School 4 (Red)
0.6662 4.5035 0.148 0.88285
School 5 (Purple)
2.4839 3.7080 0.670 0.50523
School 6 (Pink)
-5.9630 4.5391 -1.314 0.19343
School 7 (Yellow)
-12.6848 3.0419 -4.170 8.94e-05***
The school coefficient was not significantly different from zero in predicting the ORF score, except for School 7 (Yellow), whose ORF results were much lower and differed significantly from the others (Table 3). In other words, despite the apparent differences in ORF between schools (Table 2, Figure 1), there was more ORF variation within
1 Six school outputs were compared against School 2 (Blue), hence School 2 is not shown in this table.
For example, School 3 (Green) was estimated on average to increase the output score two times more than the School 2, and School 7 (Yellow) was estimated to decrease the output score 12 times more than the School 2. Key to probability levels: *: p<0.05 or 5%; **: p<0.01 or 1%; ***: p<0.01 or 0.1%
12
schools than there was between schools, indicating that no school produced more fluent readers than the other schools.
Gender and age differences across the schools
Table 4: Mean performance on literacy measures across gender and age.
Gender differences Letter-sound
mean Word reading ORF Oral Reading
comprehension
Boys 57.8 29.91 20.09 1.6
Girls 60.39 33.31 26.69 2.1
Age differences
8-9 yrs 59.06 32.12 24.08 1.9
10-12+ yrs 63.83 30.17 24.33 1.7
The results showed that girls performed better than boys across the different literacy items (Table 4). While ORF scores in both genders appear normally distributed, the girls out-performed the boys, as evidenced by a higher median and longer upper whisker (Figure 3). The boys reading at the 75th percentile were more or less at the median of the girl readers (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Box plot of ORF across gender.
These gender differences were significant at the p<0.05 level (Table 5). Age in this cohort was not a statistically significant factor (Table 5). Although the older learners performed slightly better on letter-sound fluency, their performance was weaker for word reading and ORF (Table 4). Repeating another year in Foundation Phase does not seem to have made a difference to their overall literacy development. Given the small sample size of older children, strong conclusions are not possible.
13
Table 5: ANOVA results for differences in gender and age between the schools.2
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 30.3920 11.7637 2.584 0.01197*
Age 0.2765 1.3454 0.205 0.83781
Gender -5.9162 2.8489 -2.077 0.04167*
Non-readers across the schools
Another way of examining the data is to see how many non-readers there were in each school. English is the most widely researched language in terms of reading, and developmental norms for HL English readers have been established. They indicate that learners who cannot read connected text at 40 wcpm by the end of Grade 1 are vulnerable readers in need of special attention. Furthermore, readers who perform at
<25% in comprehension are regarded as non-readers.
ORF norms in African languages would be different, given the agglutinating nature of African languages. Even though such norms have not yet been established for African languages, initial research in this field suggests that Grade-1 readers can read at 20- 25 wcpm in the Nguni languages (e.g., isiXhosa and isiZulu). Reading below 20 wcpm in a Nguni language in Foundation Phase indicates vulnerable readers, that is, learners who have not yet mastered the basics of reading and can be regarded as non-readers.
Using 20 wcpm as a benchmark in isiXhosa, there were relatively large proportions of non-readers at each school (Table 3). It is disturbing how high the number of non- readers was across the schools, and particularly at Schools 1 (Orange), 6 (Pink) and 7 (Yellow). Although School 2 (Blue) had relatively few non-readers (16.6%), the overall mean at the school was still extremely low, indicating that the schools are not producing learners who are reading at optimal levels by the time they are in Grade 3. The schools targeted for intervention in this baseline study have a high number of non-readers in each sample, and are clearly in need of instructional support.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in this small study, class size did not seem to have a direct bearing on literacy performance. School 7 (Yellow) performed the worst with a mean ORF of only 14.5 wcpm and 58% of non-readers, yet it had the smallest number of children in the class (32) (Table 6). This suggests that the potential benefits of smaller classes are cancelled when early reading instruction is badly taught.
2 Key to probability levels: *: p<0.05 or 5%; **: p<0.01 or 1%; ***: p<0.01 or 0.1%
14 Table 6: Mean ORF and non-readers across schools.
School Mean ORF (wcpm) Percentage of non-readers
in sample Class size
School 1
(Orange) 25.3 41.6 53
School 2
(Blue) 24.9 16.6 39
School 3
(Green) 28.9 16.7 45
School 4
(Red, control) 27.4 38.3 41
School 5
(Purple, control) 24.4 41.7 36
School 6
(Pink) 19.9 50.0 55
School 7
(Yellow) 14.5 58.3 32
Results: qualitative findings: classroom observations
We turn now to the qualitative findings of the study to see what they revealed about some of the enabling conditions provided at each school, and how these outcomes might inform our understanding of the quantitative results obtained (above). The findings herein are presented using a selection of data drawn from the classroom observation tool, with the criteria for the selection grounded in what is considered appropriate to establish a classroom environment that is conducive to foundational literacy.
The reading corner
It is widely considered important to stimulate a love of reading by providing regular opportunities for learners to read, both in classroom time through the formal reading exercises and as an informal activity by means of a reading corner where learners may access reading matter once they have completed set tasks (Roskos & Neuman, 2011;
Mignano & Weinstein, 2007; Martin, Lovat & Purnell, 2004). How the reading corner is set up, whether books are changed on a regular basis, whether themes of reading matter are made available and where the book corner is placed in terms of accessibility, are all considered important for nurturing a love of reading in the Foundation Phase learner.
The observation tool that was used to assess the classroom environment, placed some emphasis on these aspects.
An ‘inviting/attractive’ book corner should have the following elements:
A mat/carpet to allow a learner to sit at floor level;
Large cushions to allow the learner to sit comfortably on the floor;
Small chairs to allow the learner to sit comfortably while handling a book;
Age appropriate books to ensure that the reading material is accessible;
Books in HL (isiXhosa in this case), to allow learners to relate to what is being read and to meet curriculum requirements;
15
Books in FAL (English in this case) to support the development of a second language;
A bookcase/shelves to display the books to ensure accessibility and to make them more inviting, facilitating selection of something of interest;
A poster about the handling of books to promote appropriate care of reading materials;
Other items, such as puppets or soft toys, which supplement reading and invite story-telling. This leads to development of language with learners practising story-telling and reading with, for example, a teddy as an audience.
Figure 4: Reading corners: quality across seven schools.
One school, School 5 (Purple, control), was prominent in the quality of their book corner (Figure 4). Four of the seven schools did not have a book corner and two had a sub-standard book corner. Qualitative analysis of the researcher’s reports noted that ‘no timetabling of reading was evident in the teachers’ lesson plans’ and ‘no child was seen to be reading during class time’.
Photographic evidence showed that book corners were not considered a priority in the classrooms. Most classes had sufficient space to set up a corner or to create a designated space for reading. School 5 (Purple) had the most appropriate book corner in that the books were neatly arranged; there was a variety of books available in different languages and there was an attempt at displaying the books, but it did still require some improvement (Figure 5). The books were not thematically arranged, there were no supplementary resources to invite the reader and there were no soft cushions or chairs to support the reader in sitting in the book corner. However, the teacher had adapted her space to meet the need for a book corner despite limited space in her classroom – there were 36 learners. None of the seven schools had cushions or chairs available for learners to sit on in the reading corners.
Limitedeffort Limitedeffort No book corner No book corner Inviting corner No book corner No book corner
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Score
Schools
16
Figure 5: School 5 (Purple) book corner. The book shelves were part of a cupboard.
In School 2 (Blue), it was evident that the teacher had misunderstood the purpose of a book corner and had simply created a table for the storage of the learner’s work books (Figure 6). This would not facilitate reading. The books were mainly graded readers with no alternative books that might entice the learner to pick up a book and read. There were no cushions or chairs or mat for the learners to sit in the book corner and comfortably select a book to practise their reading.
17
Figure 6: A book corner labelled in isiXhosa but not English.
It is interesting to note that the schools that had no book corner had somewhat chaotic classroom environments with resources poorly stored, untidy teacher desks and a general sense that the spaces for learning were unimportant (Figures 7-9).
Figure 7: A chaotic piles of learner’s books, boxes and papers.
18
Figure 8: Learners’ books jumbled together with boxes, drinking utensils and paper.
Figure 9: It is questionable whether these objects belong in a classroom.
Word walls
Word walls are a key aspect of literacy instruction according to the CAPS curriculum (2011) and should be designed to allow the learners to draw from their existing knowledge by putting up words that they already know, learning from one another by sharing words that they know as a collective group and adding to learners’ knowledge by constantly updating the wall with new words that come up from reading and writing exercises, or other lessons. Word walls should be regularly updated in the course of a two-week teaching cycle.
19
Figure 10: Word walls, in isiXhosa, across seven schools.
Only two of the seven schools had a functional word wall 3 (School 5, Purple, and School 3, Green; Figure 10). School 3 (Green) performed above average in ORF.
School 5 (Purple), which was also a control school, was within average results. School 7 (Yellow) showed some usage while School 1 (Orange) had minimal usage. Three schools showed no use at all (2 Blue, 4 Red, and 6 Pink).
Figure 11: School 3 (Green): word wall.
School 3 (Green) had a functional word wall in that there were lists of words that the learners had encountered in their literacy work and were written by hand in isiXhosa (Figure 11). The problems were that the words were not big enough for all learners to be
3 By this it is meant that there was evidence that the wall was being actively used.
Minimal
None
Functional
None
Functional
None
Reasonable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Score
Schools
20
able to copy them from any area of the classroom, the background was unattractive because the wall was peeling and there were no icons or anything that would either invite the learner to look at the words or assist them in decoding the words.
Although the teacher has taken the time to put together lists of words, thereby making it possible to some extent for learners to make use of this visual dictionary to assist with their reading and writing, this would only happen if the teacher actively directed their attention to the word wall and had activities that required the learners to engage with it.
The qualitative comments by the field researchers stated that the classroom was not print rich, had no birthday charts, number chart, weather chart, class rules or alphabet chart. In addition, this classroom had no book corner. The teacher did, however, have a weekly planning file which many of the other teachers in the sampled schools, did not have.
Figure 12: School 1 (Orange): note the size and position of the word wall.
A different model of a word wall was found in School 1 (Orange) (Figure 12). Here the teacher appeared to have a written text with some words that had been extracted to highlight the spelling and to support FAL. Given that this class teacher had 53 learners in the class, it was essential for the word wall to be placed so as to enable as many learners as possible to access the print. In addition, the print needed to be clear and large. This word wall was positioned at the front of the class which may have made it visible to some of the learners (certainly not all of them), but the size of the print and the informal style of writing could have affected how well the learners engaged with this word wall. It was noted by the field researcher that there were random words dotted around the classroom, without any connection to either a picture or a theme. She additionally noted that she did not see any reading or writing taking place, either in the planned activities or during the observed session.
21
Figure 13: School 5 (Purple): a print-rich environment with labelling.
School 5 (Purple) had a variety of labelling on the walls, including visual icons and labels on the word wall (Figure 13). However, there was limited accommodation for the addition of words that the learners could pick or generate. Labelling was in both English and isiXhosa. The teacher had made use of a variety of posters and friezes to provide a stimulating print-rich environment for the learners.
Figure 14: School 7 (Yellow): high position of the word wall.
22
In School 7 (Yellow), there was an attempt at a word wall and use of icons to support the words (Figure 14). The placement of the word wall, however, was problematic as it was too high for the learners to easily access the words or add new words. The words were in isiXhosa and appeared to be grouped in themes. This classroom was considered by the field researchers to be lacking in stimulating posters and the organisation of the resources was chaotic (Figure 14).
Alphabet charts
The use of an alphabet chart is particularly important in schools where learners are grappling with more than one language. It provides starting blocks for learning to read and write, when there are alphabet charts for both English and isiXhosa. The learner has the opportunity to compare languages and the presence of an icon next to each letter assists the learner to make the necessary sound-shape connections. Although the learners in the sampled classes were all from Grade 3, their EGRA tests showed that there was a deficit in their understanding of basic letter sounds and shapes.
Consequently, alphabet charts would be considered a priority.
Figure 15: Comparative analysis of alphabet charts, in isiXhosa and/or English, across seven schools.
Schools 1 (Orange, intervention) and 5 (Purple, control) scored the highest in having appropriate alphabet charts (Figure 15). This included a chart in isiXhosa and in English, with icons for each. In the photographic evidence (below) it was clear that the posters were generally poorly displayed with curled edges and tears. In addition, the posters were generally not grouped thematically to facilitate learning.
Appropriate
None None None
Appropriate
None
Minimal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Score
Schools
23
Figure 16: School 1 (Orange): a variety of alphabet posters not grouped together and inadequately displayed.
Figure 17: School 5 (Purple): isiXhosa alphabet chart displayed at the top of the wall.
In School 5 (Purple) the classroom was generally print-rich and both types of alphabet were displayed, including icons. Alphabet charts should be placed at a level that makes
24
them accessible to learners. However, they are often placed above or below blackboards in Foundation Phase classrooms.
Figure 18: School 7 (Yellow): high display of partial isiXhosa alphabet, but no English alphabet.
In School 7 (Yellow) the alphabet was in mother-tongue and was displayed above the black board. It was placed high up, was incomplete and in black and white, making it less effective because it was not visually appealing, neither did it make all the letters available to the learners.
Cross-cutting analysis
This section deals with an analysis which combined the two types of data, namely the classroom observation tool and ORF test data. (The ORF test was regarded as representative of overall foundational literacy.)
Using regression analysis, a linear model was fitted to the data. The results gave us estimates of the coefficients and their standard errors and p-values (Table 7). The linear model revealed that Age, Reading Corner and Learner Desks were the only factors that tended to increase with increasing ORF scores, but the Age effect was not statistically significant. Females performed significantly better than Males in the ORF test, and students in the A-rated group significantly out-performed students in the C-rated, but not the B-rated group.
The analysis showed that a reading corner was significantly correlated with an increase in ORF scores, but also implied that having a print-rich environment, resources, and a
25
good classroom environment (other than learner desks and a reading corner) tended to correlate with a decrease in ORF score. (This anomaly is taken up again in the Discussion section, below.)
Table 7: Results from fitting a linear model to the quantitative and qualitative data.4
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 891.9946 335.8979 2.656 0.00988**
Age 0.2765 1.3454 0.205 0.83781
Gender male -5.9162 2.8489 -2.077 0.04167*
Rating B -1.7628 2.9590 -0.596 0.55336
Rating C -11.5673 2.8324 -4.084 0.00012***
Print-rich environment -14.6458 5.6498 -2.592 0.01169*
Reading corner 93.4143 34.8638 2.679 0.00927**
Resources -15.4545 6.0139 -2.570 0.01241*
Classroom environment -34.6595 13.0205 -2.662 0.00972**
Learner desks 103.5559 38.4490 2.693 0.00893**
Theme table -246.8111 91.6525 -2.693 0.00894**
Discussion
It is important to launch children on successful reading trajectories from the start of schooling. If children get off to a slow or uncertain start it becomes difficult for them to catch up later. A faltering initial reading trajectory creates cracks in literacy development which “in time become gaps, and finally...chasms in learning” (Johnson, 2012).
All seven schools in this baseline study were non-fee paying Quintile 1-3 schools (the poorest schools in South Africa) that serve children from communities at a low socio- economic level. Because it is unlikely that children from disadvantaged communities will have rich exposure to and experiences of print-based material and literacy activities in the home, it is even more important that schools in these communities have a strong orientation toward learners’ literacy development from the very start of schooling.
Exposure to print-based material, explicit instruction in how the alphabetic code works, and the provision of plenty of opportunities to engage in meaningful literacy activities are important conditions for early reading development.
Given the time constraints of this baseline study, attention was focused on two main areas, namely (1) an assessment of the isiXhosa literacy levels of a sample of 84 Grade- 3 learners from seven schools in Kwanobuhle, and (2) ‘snapshot’ assessments of the classroom environments from which the sample was drawn. Informal observations were made of actual teacher literacy practices through the use of a classroom observation tool. This allowed for inferences about classroom literacy practices, and to relate them to the outcomes of the literacy assessments and the classroom snapshots.
Two main findings emerged from this study. Firstly, the outcomes of the quantitative literacy assessment indicated low literacy levels among the sample of 84 Grade-3
4 Note that ORF data, female gender and Rating A were the bases for comparison, therefore they are not included in this table. (Key to probability levels: *: p<0.05 or 5%; **: p<0.01 or 1%; ***: p<0.01 or 0.1%)
26
learners tested, suggesting that the learners were not being launched on a strong reading trajectory in the Foundation Phase. Secondly, the outcomes of the qualitative classroom assessments were indicative of classrooms which, on the whole, while not totally print deprived, were not print rich. The print-based resources were not always well organised and managed, some classrooms showed chaotic, disorganised print resources, and several classrooms did not provide enticing, stimulating environments that could enhance and support. Although some of the classrooms did show evidence that teachers were trying to create print-rich environments, their potential impact on reading development was not yet in evidence.
Getting reading right from the start
The two main components of reading are decoding and comprehension. Comprehension is what reading is all about, but comprehension is seriously compromised if decoding skills are not well established. If learners are not familiar with the alphabetic principle (i.e., the knowledge that letters represent sounds in written language) and have not developed a certain level of automaticity (i.e., fluency and accuracy in decoding), then they struggle to understand what they read. Decoding thus forms a necessary, but not sufficient, part of comprehension.
Knowledge of letter-sounds, the ability to read words fluently and accurately out of context, and the ability to read words fluently and accurately in the context of a passage (ORF) are skills that underpin decoding ability. Knowledge of letter-sounds and word reading ability correlate strongly with ORF, and ORF in turns correlates with reading comprehension and is a bridge to comprehension.
Knowledge of letter-sounds (phonics) should be taught early in Foundation Phase, especially in Grade 1, as this forms the basis of decoding in an alphabetic language.
This should be taught explicitly and mastery should be demonstrated early. Although mastery of letter-sounds does not guarantee fluent word reading, without such knowledge word reading is very difficult. Only learners in School 4 (Red) approximated mastery in this area. The schools whose learners performed weakest in this area were also schools whose learners performed poorly in ORF, indicating the knock-on effect of how early cracks in literacy knowledge lead to gaps.
Takeaway 1: Phonics should be explicitly and systematically taught in Foundation Phase to develop knowledge of letter-sounds, and teachers should be shown how to do this effectively. Although phonics is important, it should not dominate classroom practice. At least 15 minutes of explicit phonics instruction should be done per day, as recommended by CAPS. Mastery of letter-sounds should be clearly demonstrated by the end of Grade 1.
Although there is a strong relationship between single-word reading ability and ORF, readers who struggle tend to find it easier to read words in isolation (out of context) than they do in the context of connected text. The two schools (3, Green and 4, Red) which had relatively high ORF means, were also schools whose learners performed better on
27
letter-sounds and single word reading. If classroom activities mainly involve children reading words or single sentences from the chalkboard in whole class chorusing and provide few opportunities for meaningful reading practice, then learners are unlikely to develop strong word-reading skills.
Takeaway 2: Teachers should be aware of the different sub-skills that contribute to decoding fluency and ensure fluency and accuracy in word reading, in and out of context. Practice opportunities should be maximised through a variety of activities, for example, the use of flashcards, word walls, writing supporting reading, shared reading, group guided reading, paired reading and silent independent reading. The meaning of words that children read should also be emphasised, so that vocabulary knowledge is built in tandem with reading.
ORF is a good indicator of decoding skill. Decoding is a perceptual process where speed matters. The faster the process can be executed, the more efficiently it links incoming information with what is in working memory. Developing automaticity in decoding (i.e., reading fast and accurately) is critical for reading as it frees up working memory, which then enables the reader to pay attention to comprehension while reading. Novice and weak readers expend a lot of cognitive capacity and attention on trying to decode words, and this slows down reading pace and compromises comprehension. The slow ORF pace of the Grade-3 learners in this study is cause for concern. Although norms for ORF in the Nguni languages, with their conjunctive orthography, have not yet been established, but early findings suggest that Grade-1 isiXhosa readers can and should read at 22-28 wcpm, and that by Grade-3 learners should be reading at least 38-45 wcpm. The NEEDU (2013) report on Foundation Phase literacy in South Africa, recommends that learners be reading at 70 wcpm by the end of Grade 3. Yet the majority of learners in this study were reading under 30 wcpm, and only 9% could read at 40 wcpm or more. The early cracks in learners’ literacy development can turn into gaps by Grade 3 if learners read slowly and haltingly.
Takeaway 3: Teachers need to be aware of the importance of fluency in reading, how to promote it and assess it, so that they can explicitly support their learners’ ORF development. Providing daily opportunities for learners to practise reading extended text is important, e.g. in group guided, paired and Independent reading. Being made aware of expected reading rates for early grades in isiXhosa will also help teachers achieve these goals.
The relationship between the classroom environment and literacy performance The cross-cutting analysis revealed two seemingly contradictory findings (see Table 7, above). On the one hand, there was a positive relationship between having access to a reading corner in a classroom and ORF scores, while on the other hand a classroom environment with more print-based resources appeared to be correlated with a decrease in learner performance in ORF. School 4 (Red), which was generally print poor, had the highest composite score, while School 5 (Purple) scored highest in terms of print
28
richness, but had the third poorest ORF scores. This seeming contradiction points to the complexity of early reading instruction. It is not being suggested here that having a print-rich environment and making use of resources is an unnecessary or negative exercise, but rather that teachers need to actively engage learners with print and books and build this into their planning and pedagogy in order for the resources to pay dividends and build learners’ literacy. The majority (91%) of learners in the baseline study were reading at levels more appropriate to Grade 1 than Grade 3, irrespective of how the classrooms looked.
The availability of a reading corner was shown to be a factor correlated with increased performance on the ORF test when cross-cutting analyses were undertaken. However, the quality of book corners and availability of the latter was highly problematic in this research sample. Qualitative analysis of field researcher data and photographs evidenced that none of the seven schools had enticing book corners, neither were there cushions or chairs available for learners to sit on in the reading corner. This would suggest that there may be issues linked to availability of space and or teacher attitude towards the importance of a book corner in promoting foundational literacy. For example, it was noted in School 2 (Blue) that, although the book corner was rudimentary, the teacher had made some handmade books in isiXhosa, but most of the space used was for storing work books as opposed to inviting the reading of books for pleasure purposes. This would suggest that the teacher did not consider the book corner to be important or she did not understand the purpose of a book corner. It is clear that when teachers are trained they need to be made aware of how important a book corner is and how to set up such a space in their learning environment. It is interesting to note that the schools that had no book corner also showed concomitant signs of a chaotic classroom environment, with resources poorly stored, untidy teacher desks and a general sense that the spaces for learning were unimportant.
Likewise, the presence and quality of word walls were varied across the seven schools.
All too frequently Foundation Phase teachers might have a word wall, but this is rarely added to and often simply contains the learners’ names which are placed on the wall at the beginning of the year, but then never updated or engaged with as a teaching tool (Harrison, 2014). This means that the learner is not getting the full benefit of the word wall. Some word walls were in inappropriate places where the learners could not see or engage with them properly.
Takeaway 4: Teachers need to be made aware of the link between exposure and accessibility to literacy resources and literacy development. Helping teachers build print- rich classrooms is an important way of enhancing literacy development, especially for children from low SE backgrounds. However, it is important to also show teachers how to manage their print resources and integrate them into daily classroom practice in ways that will impact literacy development.
29
Classroom environments
The outcomes of the classroom assessments show that, while some effort was made to make classrooms more print-rich, especially in some schools (e.g., School 5, Purple), there was still much room for improvement across all the schools. Improving the print- richness of classrooms needs to happen on two levels: the structural and the functional.
The structural refers to the sheer physical presence of books, posters, friezes, labels, word walls, etc. This is the more quantitative aspect of creating a print-rich classroom, where amount of ‘richness’ matters. There should be plenty of different written things to read in the classroom on a regular basis. This is especially important when children come from homes which are print poor. However, teachers need to know how to display these in optimal ways where young children will best notice them and benefit from them. They also need to update the print-based material regularly to reflect what is being taught in the classroom, and they need to store and manage their resources effectively.
The functional refers to how the print-based material is valued and used. This is the more qualitative aspect of creating a print-rich environment that moves teachers beyond
‘window-dressing’ their classrooms. Simply putting things up on the walls to make the classroom ‘look good’ will not enhance learners’ literacy development. Teachers need to interact with the literacy artefacts daily and show children in what way they are used and are meaningful. For example, a weather chart can be used every day to engage learners in practical ways in observing the weather, learning and recognising weather words and the way we ‘discourse’ about the weather. Teachers can help learners move beyond the everyday words of sunny, cloudy, windy to more advanced weather words (blustery, breezy, overcast) in both HL and FAL, with children learning both oral and written forms by way of labels or flashcards. Numeracy skills can be developed through recording temperatures, etc. In this way, the print-rich classroom becomes a natural extension of the teaching-learning spiral of integrated speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary development and thinking skills, in both HL and FAL, in ways that orient children to meaningful literacy practices. Creating a print-rich classroom is not about window dressing, but about using the space to enhance learning through planning and pedagogy.
Takeaway 5: Teachers need support not only in terms of introducing more print-based materials into their classrooms, but also in how to manage their resources and how to integrate the print-based materials into meaningful classroom practice. It is these latter aspects that are often lacking in interventions that put resources into schools without showing teachers how to care for and use such resources.
Teacher assessment of learners’ literacy levels
Another finding that emerged from the baseline study was the mismatch at times between teachers’ perceptions of their top performers and what the assessments actually revealed.
30
There was some evidence that learners who had been identified by teachers as being top readers (Group A) did not perform as well as learners in the middle ‘average’ group (Group B), and some readers in the middle did not perform at all. At times, learners identified as weak readers performed similarly to readers who were claimed to be good or average. For example, a learner from School 3 (Green) who was judged to be an average middle-group reader by the teacher, was one of only two learners in the entire sample of 84 learners who was able to read the passage of 56 words within one minute and could answer the comprehension questions correctly. In School 2 (Blue) there was very little difference in performance between the A, B and C group readers. Several of the learners in School 5 (Purple) also did not read according to their assigned reading group.
The anomalies between the groupings and learner performance could be attributed to teachers not allocating the correct children to each group, as some of the field researchers noted that, when they arrived at the school, the teachers did not have a list of learners ready for assessment. An alternative explanation could be that the learners were nervous and did not perform at optimal level. However, these anomalies do raise questions about the criteria that teachers use to assess their learners’ reading abilities, how accurate their assessments are, and whether learners are, in fact, assessed at all.
Qualitative analysis of the data evidenced that in many of the classrooms there were no graded reading books, no HL literacy activities in the learners’ DBE workbooks had been marked, and FAL workbooks had not been used in the first two terms. These factors, singly and together, make it difficult for teachers to identify early deficiencies in literacy development and how to address them.
Takeaway 6: Teachers in the Foundation Phase need to be given support in how to assess different aspects of decoding an
